No fan of Corey...but can't prove?

The guy leads the cops to the body. After months of searches with no results, this guy hops in a police van and takes them to the body.

Just blind luck I guess. Doesn't prove anything? Well, how about psychic.

 

I agree with all you're saying, with the exception that Corey has a proven history of over charging in high profile cases.

 

It causes perps to go free.  She wouldn't budge on Anthony and she walked free.

 

I was a jurist in one such case.  Overshot the first trial by including the death penalty option.  Took it away in the second trial after mistrial.  On the third trial, the murderer was finally convicted after the second mistrial.

 

It shouldn't take three tries for a proper conviction if the charges match the provable case.  OJ got off for the same reason - charges that didn't match the provable case.  Difference in that situation was that there was enough doubt with the mishandling of evidence, etc., but same situation - lesser charges could have been proven even with that doubt.  But not the "home run" charges.

 

This will be interesting to watch going forward.  Does she overcharge yet again and make it a difficult case to convict, or does she change her overzealous ways and get it right the first time?

 

We'll see.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Ebron or the mother feared for their life, self defense because Lonzie was going to kill them.

Solid, solid defense. They'll never see it coming.

---

I don't think I have a right to take someone's life. However,if I'm on a jury and the crime is eligible for the death penalty then it's my responsibility to weigh that option.

I agree with you, and mistook you for ringo, I think. Sorry.


So- that question is how does the individual assigned to pull the switch, press the bottom that triggers the drugs being delivered to someone they don't even know's veins...


How does that individual have justification...?


"Just soon' my job...." ??


I'm not looking for a legal loophole here.


I'm asking how does that individual and society as a whole say that it is ok for this person to kill someone.

---

I agree with you, and mistook you for ringo, I think. Sorry.


So- that question is how does the individual assigned to pull the switch, press the bottom that triggers the drugs being delivered to someone they don't even know's veins...


How does that individual have justification...?


"Just soon' my job...." ??


I'm not looking for a legal loophole here.


I'm asking how does that individual and society as a whole say that it is ok for this person to kill someone.

That would certainly have to be taken into account when accepting a job of that magnitude. Are you willing to trust that you are carrying out a just sentence? If not,don't take the job.

---

That would certainly have to be taken into account when accepting a job of that magnitude. Are you willing to trust that you are carrying out a just sentence? If not,don't take the job.

 

That was the point of my sarcasm, that he completely missed, likely on purpose to serve a redirect.

 

Agree with you.

 

nate is doing a poor job of playing bleedingheart and wondering why no one sides with his position.

 

Those who deserve the death penalty are inhuman.  They are those who have taken innocent life without remorse, with no regard for society.  That's murder.  To kill, in this specific example - to administer justice (true justice, not the revenge ignorantly labeled justice that many leftist groups have been calling for against their fellow man) is night and day different.  But then, the dark of heart (who disguise themselves the opposite) would love to plant the seed and poison the mind so that you would believe differently.  That it's somehow the "same."

 

Yes, there is a difference between murder and killing.  They are nothing alike.  Loss of life is the only commonality, but unfortunately for those who can't see deeper that's not the end of the story.  It doesn't even scratch the surface of the full context.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Is there any difference in collateral damage in war? What about a guy drafted to go to Nam, not in the military, against the war, yet forced to go, ordered to kill ? Against someone he may have no idea what he's done, much less a family not involved,even against the war getting killed by a mistaken drone strike, massive bombing like WW2?

Where is the line drawn?

But someone who is a proven premeditated killer of a child, that dumps the kid in the woods like a piece of junk? That line is different imo. No crime is more heinous. But everyone has their own conscience, and that's fine.

---

Blakes Life Matters

Is there any difference in collateral damage in war? What about a guy drafted to go to Nam, not in the military, against the war, yet forced to go, ordered to kill ? Against someone he may have no idea what he's done, much less a family not involved,even against the war getting killed by a mistaken drone strike, massive bombing like WW2?

Where is the line drawn?

But someone who is a proven premeditated killer of a child, that dumps the kid in the woods like a piece of junk? That line is different imo. No crime is more heinous. But everyone has their own conscience, and that's fine.

The military has a time honored tradition of conscientious objection.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That was the point of my sarcasm, that he completely missed, likely on purpose to serve a redirect.

 

Agree with you.

 

nate is doing a poor job of playing bleedingheart and wondering why no one sides with his position.

 

Those who deserve the death penalty are inhuman.  They are those who have taken innocent life without remorse, with no regard for society.  That's murder.  To kill, in this specific example - to administer justice (true justice, not the revenge ignorantly labeled justice that many leftist groups have been calling for against their fellow man) is night and day different.  But then, the dark of heart (who disguise themselves the opposite) would love to plant the seed and poison the mind so that you would believe differently.  That it's somehow the "same."

 

Yes, there is a difference between murder and killing.  They are nothing alike.  Loss of life is the only commonality, but unfortunately for those who can't see deeper that's not the end of the story.  It doesn't even scratch the surface of the full context.

 

 

There is no bleeding heart aspect to it at all.  There isn't any aspect of feeling sorry for the people on death row, and that is not a factor in any way.

 

I am talking about justification on the state aspect of it, as well as on an individual aspect.  It just isn't there.  

 

I doubt the standard has anything to do with the taking of "innocent" life either.

 

If you or anyone else is really, really confident of your government and those that it employs as the "administers" of justice can and do so in a reliable way,  then I believe you are turning a blind eye to the vast amount of people walking away from death row and/or wrongly convicted in other ways.  

 

Again, I am not even contemplating being a bleeding heart.  I just know, absolutely, that it is foolish to believe that any State can point to an infallible record of not covering up evidence, planting evidence, eliciting made up confessions or encouraging misidentifications, competent representation, etc..

  

I mean....there are people here apparently willing to kill this guy in this case without knowing whether he was even involved in the death or the child.

 

In addition, the Supreme Court, the very conservative Supreme Court, just found via an 8-1  decision that the procedure used here in Florida is unconstitutional and has been for some time.  

---

There is no bleeding heart aspect to it at all. There isn't any aspect of feeling sorry for the people on death row, and that is not a factor in any way.


I am talking about justification on the state aspect of it, as well as on an individual aspect. It just isn't there.


I doubt the standard has anything to do with the taking of "innocent" life either.


If you or anyone else is really, really confident of your government and those that it employs as the "administers" of justice can and do so in a reliable way, then I believe you are turning a blind eye to the vast amount of people walking away from death row and/or wrongly convicted in other ways.


Again, I am not even contemplating being a bleeding heart. I just know, absolutely, that it is foolish to believe that any State can point to an infallible record of not covering up evidence, planting evidence, eliciting made up confessions or encouraging misidentifications, competent representation, etc..


I mean....there are people here apparently willing to kill this guy in this case without knowing whether he was even involved in the death or the child.


In addition, the Supreme Court, the very conservative Supreme Court, just found via an 8-1 decision that the procedure used here in Florida is unconstitutional and has been for some time.

There's plenty of justification if he's convicted by a jury of his peers. If so he dies. No one is saying he shouldn't get a trial.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Another step in this line of thinking - Everyone is assuming their is a killer at all.

The reported bruising on his head including fluid discharge from his ears along with lethargic behavior reported by witnesses leads me to think someone had a hand in it, whether it was intentional or not. Filing a false report saying his car was stolen with the child in it doesn't look good either.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

There is no bleeding heart aspect to it at all.  There isn't any aspect of feeling sorry for the people on death row, and that is not a factor in any way.

 

I am talking about justification on the state aspect of it, as well as on an individual aspect.  It just isn't there.  

 

I doubt the standard has anything to do with the taking of "innocent" life either.

 

If you or anyone else is really, really confident of your government and those that it employs as the "administers" of justice can and do so in a reliable way,  then I believe you are turning a blind eye to the vast amount of people walking away from death row and/or wrongly convicted in other ways.  

 

Again, I am not even contemplating being a bleeding heart.  I just know, absolutely, that it is foolish to believe that any State can point to an infallible record of not covering up evidence, planting evidence, eliciting made up confessions or encouraging misidentifications, competent representation, etc..

  

I mean....there are people here apparently willing to kill this guy in this case without knowing whether he was even involved in the death or the child.

 

In addition, the Supreme Court, the very conservative Supreme Court, just found via an 8-1  decision that the procedure used here in Florida is unconstitutional and has been for some time.  

 

If you consider the impossibility of infallibility of the state added to the inequities of acquiring adequate defense depending on economic situations, how anyone can say killing a human being is fair escapes me..

 

There are no do overs if they get it wrong, and we know they get it wrong. Not often, but one executed innocent is one too many. I know we had a long debate on this months ago, but even if we cannot now prove an innocent man has been executed, we can't disprove it either. That alone should be enough to cause the state to stop killing people.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

There is no bleeding heart aspect to it at all.  There isn't any aspect of feeling sorry for the people on death row, and that is not a factor in any way.

 

I am talking about justification on the state aspect of it, as well as on an individual aspect.  It just isn't there.  

 

I doubt the standard has anything to do with the taking of "innocent" life either.

 

If you or anyone else is really, really confident of your government and those that it employs as the "administers" of justice can and do so in a reliable way,  then I believe you are turning a blind eye to the vast amount of people walking away from death row and/or wrongly convicted in other ways.  

 

Again, I am not even contemplating being a bleeding heart.  I just know, absolutely, that it is foolish to believe that any State can point to an infallible record of not covering up evidence, planting evidence, eliciting made up confessions or encouraging misidentifications, competent representation, etc..

  

I mean....there are people here apparently willing to kill this guy in this case without knowing whether he was even involved in the death or the child.

 

In addition, the Supreme Court, the very conservative Supreme Court, just found via an 8-1  decision that the procedure used here in Florida is unconstitutional and has been for some time.  

 

A true conservative would oppose the death penalty because a true conservative recognizes that the government is incompetent.


 

Of course that logic also means that some murderers either get released or escape and then commit more murders. There's no getting around government incompetence.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

A true conservative would oppose the death penalty because a true conservative recognizes that the government is incompetent.


Of course that logic also means that some murderers either get released or escape and then commit more murders. There's no getting around government incompetence.

The government doesn't render the verdict.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

There's plenty of justification if he's convicted by a jury of his peers. If so he dies. No one is saying he shouldn't get a trial.

Again, what is the individual's justification for being the one to take another's life?

---

The government doesn't render the verdict.

The government gathers evidence.


Decides what path to go down in an investigation versus another or others.


Decides what witnesses to interview, or where to look for evidence,


Or not.


Decides what charges to file.


Decides whether one case is suitable for the death penalty versus another.


Decides what evidence to put before a jury.


Decides how to administer it's own penalty.


Also, a point you have avoided, the government decides who, individually is chosen and worthy to take another person's life.


Decided what to argue on appeal.



I guess that's a start.


Please tell me how much confidence you have in your government in each phase to do a job you as a citizen can stand behind.

---

The reported bruising on his head including fluid discharge from his ears along with lethargic behavior reported by witnesses leads me to think someone had a hand in it, whether it was intentional or not. Filing a false report saying his car was stolen with the child in it doesn't look good either.

Well, none of it LOOKS good. It often doesn't LOOK good, depending on what has been put out there.


It didn't LOOK good for the parents of Jon Benet Ramsey,


I doubt many would argue that if they'd have been tried in the months following that, very few would have walked them, and people would have been more than willing to just roll with what they think they know from the media.


Tough tough stuff to reserve judgment and wait on facts.

---

The government gathers evidence.

Decides what path to go down in an investigation versus another or others.

Decides what witnesses to interview, or where to look for evidence,

Or not.

Decides what charges to file.

Decides whether one case is suitable for the death penalty versus another.

Decides what evidence to put before a jury.

Decides how to administer it's own penalty.

Also, a point you have avoided, the government decides who, individually is chosen and worthy to take another person's life.

Decided what to argue on appeal.

I guess that's a start.

Please tell me how much confidence you have in your government in each phase to do a job you as a citizen can stand behind.

I'm not avoiding anything, I'll do it, I have that right if chosen by the law to do so.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm not avoiding anything, I'll do it, I have that right if chosen by the law to do so.

So you are justified, morally and personally, to kill another person, who you have no tie to yourself individually?

---

So you are justified, morally and personally, to kill another person, who you have no tie to yourself individually?

 

Yes. Sorry to end your attempts at moral relativism, but some people believe (rightfully so) that to murder and to kill are not the same thing. I have the moral authority, as a human being authorized by the people of our nation and community, to end the life of a person convicted of murder. End of story.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yes. Sorry to end your attempts at moral relativism, but some people believe (rightfully so) that to murder and to kill are not the same thing. I have the moral authority, as a human being authorized by the people of our nation and community, to end the life of a person convicted of murder. End of story.

 

Given this logic, it is reasonable to infer you also recognize the moral authority of doctors who perform abortions.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley